Skip to main content

About this Show

Capitol Hill Hearings





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 121 (777 MHz)






Us 13, America 13, U.s. 11, Mexico 11, United States 8, Washington 6, Colin Powell 5, Leahy 5, Madeleine Albright 3, Canada 3, Gramm 3, Fbi 3, Mafia 2, Paso 2, Ben Bernanke 2, San Diego 2, Afghanistan 2, Iran 2, North America 2, Nogales 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Capitol Hill Hearings    News/Business.  

    July 18, 2012
    6:00 - 7:00am EDT  

of u.s. security policy. west versus east. and just wanted to make the point at the outset that it is insufficient to talk about the border region being secure without specifying precisely where you are talking about. in terms of our preliminary findings on the objective measures, i will just focus on a couple here. terror related activity, falling 9/11, a lot was made about are perceived the vulnerability at the u.s.-mexico border. this was one of the major driving forces behind -- this was an additional driving force behind increasing staffing and
infrastructure at our border with mexico. a specific interest in the report or what we call special interest aliens. these are countries that are either designated state sponsors of terrorism, such as iran, countries were terrorist organizations are known to operate, such as colombia or pakistan. according to the latest data we have been able to focus on, arrest by border patrols increased between 2007 and 2011. during fiscal year 2011, the number of arrests was down to 380, a decline when compared with 2010. the trend line june 3, 2012
shows they are down another 32%. the majority of the rest occur along the southwest border. the data available seems to indicate that it is in decline. the statement provided by the u.s. intelligence community and the permanent state suggests that while there is potential risk, there have not been any terrorist entering in the united states over the southwest border. shifting to levels of violence, in terms of the level of violence, we have had a tremendous discussion about the safety and security of the southwest border.
in spite of the fact that on the u.s. side, the fbi crime statistics show declining numbers in almost all cities along the border, including phoenix, where i live. this includes san diego as well as el paso. from 2007 forward to just recently, the situation on the mexican side of the border was quite different. that is shown by a slide here. there is the difference between the east and the west there. we have seen an increase in
violence and ciudad juarez has come down quite a bit. a major crossing point for fruits and vegetables. nogales is the biggest headache for folks in sonora. even nogales pales in comparison with cities in the east. way back in march, erich hennen chris and i made a visit to elpaso, a field visit for purposes of research on this project. we met with a number of major stakeholders in the region including fbi, border patrol. we met with state prosecutors on the mexican side.
our esteemed friends in the chihuahua state contrast. jorge conteras ordinates an effort that arose out of very dangerous security situations in late 2010, and is noted for his input from local, state, and federal actors as well as folks in civil society. basically one thing they were trying to do was establish a
baseline to look just at ciudad juarez. this is in the area of homicides. that is by far the most controversy ill, the most talked-about measure. they measure other things as well, like carjackings, distortion. in general,, is headed downward, which goes back to what the assistant secretary said about the difficulty of projecting forward from current events. this is very notable. ciudad juearz being the most high-profile and problematic puzzle on the board. i do not have statistics at this point, but things aren't
looking not quite as good in places like monterey, those northeastern cities in mexico that are the current flashpoint of conflict between these transnational criminal organizations. we are also going to talk a little bit about apprehensions. this goes back to the other slide. it is borne out by several studies. just looking at some specific sectors, this is worth going into.
el paso, which in the early 1990's, prior to the policy changes there, had 117,000. that is a peak in fiscal year 2005. in 2011 and had an amazingly low apprehension -- amount amazingly new low number of apprehensions. the staffing of the el paso sector is that well over 2000 agents. you are at a situation where you might be overstaffed in the el paso sector. you cannot move people around very quickly in the federal government.
we are seeing a situation where we are seeing diminishing returns from our investment, particularly in that sector. san diego, down from a peak of 81,000 in fiscal year 2009. tucson sector has fallen off a cliff practically. is that 111,000 apprehensions for fiscal year 2011. we talked a little bit about the flow is being pushed eastward from san diego, folks trying to reach those southern california labor market and into the arizona corridor, which up until that point had been a relatively sleepy immigration corridor.
we talked about the reasons for this. the very strong mexican economy that chris touched on. an increasingly dangerous situation for migrants passing through northeastern mexico in late 2010. those are the main, hard figures i am going to talk about today. in general, i think this approach has reached a point of diminishing returns. i think that is worth repeating. a don't think we can continue to staff between the ports of entry in a way that is not as expensive. your getting diminishing results overcome time, for all these reasons that we talked about. in terms of the subjective
measures that i talked about, i think while i have you here today, i want to talk about the concept of moving the border away from the border. i think you would call this a metaphor. we talked about a lot of the last few years in terms of how to decongest those ports of entry and make them more functional. a lot of talk about in terms of enhancing the ports of entry, creating inland ports in mexico. the idea of joint customs inspections in mexico with u.s. agents, i don't think there is a lot of movement there. it seems like we are stalled out there. i think it is more useful to think of moving the border away from the border in a broader context. issues of cross border
collaboration, how do we enhance collaboration not only between the u.s. and mexico? i understand it is much improved from where it was just a few years ago. but how we measure that an advanceddax -- how we measure it and advance that? how come we enhance not only vertical collaboration but interagency work? in the old days it was not very functional. how can we facilitate legitimate flows? chris talked about tourism. in the southwest, we really need those mexican tourists. there is not been a more recent study than 2008, but the economic impact in arizona was at $3 billion, really, really
enormous. this is a flow of tourists that is difficult to count, for interesting reasons. mexican shoppers can use a lot of cash. how do we focus on the flows that work for us and make sense? how do we enhanced technology so it is a potential game changer? i think there have been a number of technological innovations. it was such a political disaster for the u.s. government, which just completed a small study that looked at -- we did interviews with several people in southern arizona and they all decided it was great.
it goes completely against the grain of how this was ordered in the media. the bottom line, going back to the title of this panel, the bottom line on how to build a 21st century border, i think we have a very complex border situation on the ground and the federal government's efforts in the current form only really have some control over this. this is an area that is ripe for innovation and new approaches. we are past the point of diminishing returns on this in terms of staffing between ports of entry. and know you love to talk about that, assistant secretary. i do not think we have maxed out the approaches on the outside, or the softer approaches, anything that can be done to strengthen that is worth
serious consideration. circling back to the economic side of this, we are cosponsoring a big event in september in tempe. we are doing this in conjunction with the u.s. department of commerce western hemisphere office. i would be glad to talk to anyone hear about that in terms of participating with us. thank you. [applause] >> as usual for people like us, we have gone on way too long. we have time for just a couple of questions. maybe we can take two or three questions and then have the panel respond.
please raise your hand and identify yourself if you have a question. there is one question in the back. >> i just want to ask the assistant secretary, there was talk six years ago about cancun and cabo san lucas. is that again now? >> in canada when you fly in from montreal and a number of other canadian cities, we have officers who will clear un to the united states won or in canada, so that when the plane arrives, you need not be admitted for immigration purposes and your baggage is not inspected. in mexico, we have been talking
about instituting similar kinds of projectsin. cancun, the issue was determined to be one of security, and also the need to continue the kinds of reforms being worked on in terms of mexican immigration. we have now been operating in mexico city at the airport and i think it is scheduled for cabo san lucas, is to have global entry kiosks in the airport. for the first time, mexican citizens can join a global injury and be vetted by the federal police database. mexico is creating its trusted
traveler program, and americans will be able to join that program, so that when you get into mexico city will not have to wait on line, go through the kiosks and basically establish a link between your biometrics in your passport, and you answer some questions on a customs and immigration and you pass through. the pre clearance and the way in which it takes place in canada is not yet ripe in mexico, and probably if we can get the scale, as kris wilson and derrek lee suggested, we can get the scale of these programs. it will not be required to have cpp officers there, simply providing the ability to be a trusted traveler and be cleared from a mexican airport.
>> we will get you a microphone. >> will last 20 years, a lot of folks have been talking about securing the border since the early 1990's. as you look at it, some of the technical solutions are there. what is missing is certainly the political will to address those solutions. in 2001, obviously september 11 created a punctured equilibrium, changing the dynamics in a way that you address security. what will be the next thing to get us to a 21st century, or what will be the type of change or event that will get us to
achieve that political will, to get us where we need to be? >> i will take a swing it that. i don't think it will be any one big event. i think it is your first suggestion, a matter of continual pushing for appointees and setting a vision that corresponds to collaborative border management, which is what will get us there in the end. in this case it is to our three governments. >> without disagreeing, i would point to an event that is already occurred, which is the global economic crisis. i think it was a lot of opportunity and is still
causing us to think in the united states about a rebalancing of priorities, in a certain sense. if you look at the political debate going on right now, it is all about the economy. that is a new era that we are in, and there's a lot of opportunity to have discussions about how north america as a region, and the competitiveness of north america as a region, can be one of the building blocks of the economy for the next century. to get there, one of the many things that need to be addressed, structural reforms in the u.s. and mexico, one of the things is clearly border management. it certainly can be a driving force for some of the changes in policies that have been discussed today. >> big, historical changes take generations.
i talked about what happened on the u.s.-mexican border in 1993, to of 2012 now, 20 years. i tell my mexican colleagues all the time that i remember when we were fighting the mafia in the united states. it took us 30 years to beat the mafia in the united states. when the fbi was given the tools and local and state law enforcement, it takes time. it just does not happen. what is important is to identify trends, not to be too impatient with the way in which the world works. that is not something any of us are going to change, but the idea is to build the momentum. we look at the 21st century border declaration in 2010,
you begin to see trendlines establish. i can assure you that the relationship with mexico and indeed with canada is simply not what it was five years ago. certainly not what was tenures ago. without detracting from the proposition that it takes work, work of all the people in this room these things, the fact of the matter is that we see trends that are considerably more favorable to this vision than what existed even a short time ago. . >> in terms of actors, i would not discount role of local
actors who could make things happen very quickly. it can take generations or it can happen like that. i think it happened 18 months that the new president was vetted. >> i'm not suggesting that individual projects need to take generations. i take your point. >> i think we can ended on that note or maybe we can have a closing word. >> i just wanted to save that i want to thank you all today and you have added to my personal depth of knowledge to the issue. as we talk about this as more of a political solution, i would say as elected officials, you need to have fax to move ahead.
the 40% versus 4%, the economy, jobs, economic security, the individual citizen -- these are issues that all of you have to shed light on with the facts. otherwise, the folks out there will continue to listen to one side of the debate. i encourage you to keep talking and stand up with a louder voice. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. thank you all very much for coming today. have a good one. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> in a few moments, the former secretary of state madeleine
albright and colin powell who spoke last night that the u.s. global leadership coalition. "washington journal"is live at 7:00 eastern and we look at defense spending and the cost of health care. federal reserve chairman ben bernanke is delivering his semiannual monetary policy report to congress this week. he will return to capitol hill this morning to testify before the house financial services committee. you can see that blood and her companion network, cspan 3 at 10:00 eastern. -- you can see that live. >> there has been a hostility to poverty. lyndon johnson was the best president and looked at poverty issues and spent money on it and talked about his social service program. i hate to say this but richard nixon is the father of minority business development. inside his minority business
administration, you used the term economic justice. >> the former president of bennett college for women comments on politics, education and eat -- and economic african- american history. your questions, and calls for the author of surviving. that is on book-tv. >> now, former secretaries of state madeleine albright and colin powell, their comments on the u.s. role in the world at an event hosted by the global leadership corporation. [applause]
>> what a pleasure it is to share this small, intimate, friendly gathering. with two such amazing national service who have done so much. i have had the opportunity to talk to both in the settings. -- in many settings. i am looking forward to have you connect the dots this evening in terms of america's role in the world, making the case for diplomacy and development and where you see this all going. secretary albright, it is hot in washington now, strange season -- you are famous for so many things. especially those pins you wear. tell us about the pin you are wearing. >> i am wearing a frog to night
either because we have to leap over the problems that plague this particular budget or to make sure that foreign assistance does not croak. [laughter] [applause] >> where is your pen? >> she has all the pins. >> one of the reasons when colin powell and i were both on the committee and he would walk in there with all his medals and i was a mere mortal female civilian, i figured i need some help. [laughter] [applause] >> a lot of metals and pins richly deserved and hard-earned. secretary all right, let's talk about -- when you were
secretary, there were serious efforts in congress to cut back on the foreign affairs budget an agency. there were some members of congress who boasted about not having [unintelligible] and that seems to be different now. there seems to be t to differenceone and appreciation. do you share that perception and why? >> an awful lot has to do with the people we honor tonight. it makes a tremendous difference when you have leaders on the committee that can push everything forward and congressman kay grainger - i think leadership is an important part. i have been fighting the battle of making sure that the foreign assistance budget for the international organization budget even gets through. i worked with senator muskie and i did congressional relations
for the national security council during the carter administration were undecided that the word "foreign" and " assistants" should never go together. i think there is an agreement about the importance of american leadership. i think that is a very important part. i think is some disagreement about how american leadership is deployed and under what circumstances and what programs we really work on. thanks to the coalition, i think we have been pushing it. i am not sure i fully agree that there is complete bipartisan agreement on how american leadership should be deployed and therefore we have to keep working in order to make sure we see democracy development and defense going to get there. >> secretary powell, you certainly lead this state --
state department and the defense department. what is interesting to think about is how some many military leaders have spoken out in this regard to whether it is secretary panetta recently or secretary dates or general petraeus. why do you think the military express's its feelings so eloquently for this kind of expenditure? >> we have always felt that way. i'd think we have become more vocal in recent years as we see the kinds of situations we found ourselves in. i can go back to the invasion of panama in 1989 and go forward. we realize just having a military battle that you want is not the end of the game,. perhaps he should have done more in the beginning to avoid that battle for having won the battle, how do we keep the peace and preserve the peace tax would have to be careful when we talk about these terms such as smart
power or hard power or soft power. i am reminded of a conversation i had with the former archbishop of canterbury. in 2003. you might have been there. it was on the eve of the gulf war. the archbishops stood up and said," general powell, why don't we just use soft power?" it was a critique of what we are getting ready to do. it was not soft power that rescued britain from hitler. it was hard power and you have to have that. but when we won world war two with hard power, we switched to soft power in asia and germany to create democracy. the importance of this coalition that makes what we are doing so very important is that we understand that we needed all but we have been shortchanging
the soft power which translates into smart power. for years, have been hearing the same things -- only less than 1% but it does not change. until we have more people like lindsey gramm and pat leahy will understand and the world we're living in an international environment where we are competing in so many different levels and not so much military levels as there are levels of economic, levels of development, what we're doing to help people in parts of the world. who are wondering if america is there for us. until we start to invest in that part of the power equation, america is not meeting its value and standards for the rest of the world. [applause] >> you said something important just now. it would be a great challenge to senator leahy and senator gramm and they're doing their job and
that is we need it all. america would say we cannot afford it all. that is the case you need to make that this is an investment, this is taking place in a changed world where borders are different things and national security is different. how hard is that to do? >> when one puts the facts out there in terms of that it is in our terms of our national security interests that countries can develop and people are able to live a decent life and that our values are translated and when something happens terribly and some country, it doesn't harm to america. i see it as a national security issue and sometimes it has to be argued on the basis. then there are also a lot of constituencies in this country who see it differently. we talk about the religious community. i think they have been very supportive because they don't want to see people suffer and we
have always talked about helping the poorest of the poor and you have to presented to the different constituencies in language that makes sense to them. it is not that much money. it really is not. senator gramm was talking about how long it takes the taxpayer to be able to generate it but the returns to america of people who can buy american goods or that have a sense of security and are able to develop democracies is something i think we can afford. we are a rich country. we're richer than anybody else and i think we have to make that argument very clearly. >> you put this in terms of investment. >> it is very portable. one problem i had as chairman was that it was a competition between defense spending and other state department spending. >> on the hill? >> people wanted to say you're taking money from defense. it was only when i became
secretary of state that i realized that was idiotic. [laughter] >> i would like to have been there. >> i was chairman of the joint chiefs of staff as well. i am trying to see if we can find peaceful ways to avoid conflict and i think we should all do that. there are peaceful ways but it takes investment, working with nations on a democratic path, investing in clean water, economic development, and helping people come out of poverty so they see a better life and we have the inspiration -- and we are the inspiration for the better life. that is how we avoid conflict. i want to make sure how we do it right. >> if we look at the u.s. global leadership coalition, the message is clear but there is a tremendous disconnect with the public. a reason to poll said 83% of the
american public say we should pay less attention to problems overseas and concentrate on problems at home. maybe that puts that as a binary choice which it is not. how do we address that? >> i think we have to be smarter in terms of explaining the problem and your previous profession does not help. >> what are you talking about? >> this is not a simple subject that breaking news can explain. i think we have a stake in having people understand that our security depends on the security abroad. there is no such thing as far away and is very close. >>that poll number has been used for years to suggest that the american people think that 20% of our budget is going to
foreign assistance. it is not. the world has changed in the last 20 years. the chinese are going around the world using their smart power, their soft power, to secure their mineral resources, to secure farmland or food for the chinese people. they are using their wealth, their influence around the world, to really challenge us. we still are the inspiration for the rest of the world. if we're going to be the inspiration, this is what democracy is about. this is what human rights are all about and we have to put our money behind it and the case can be made that we are a wealthy country and we can afford this. one of the major changes with respect to the pentagon and state department, i think there is more realization now on the part of military commanders that we need to perhaps even give up part of our somewhat good budget at the defense department even if it means sending it to the
state department. when we had these difficulties in iran and afghanistan and they said we made the state department and we need aid, there is not that much state department to attend to these places. we should double the size of the foreign service. [applause] we should double the size of the usa id. >> this is not incremental. it is exponential. >> there is so much work to be done and not just for a afghanistan and iraq. there's so much stuff we could be doing around the world to bring people out of disease and poverty. we have been giving credit to the work and a lot has been done but a lot more can be done to make it better and safer world. >> when senator leahy was up here speaking, he spoke about accountability. i think we should recognize
senator leahy and senator gramm once again for your accomplishments and work. [applause] i will throw in that when i was a young radio reporter in vermont in 1977, senator leahy that was making the case that his dairy farmers -in vermont or selling products -- were selling products overseas. >> caterpillar makes money and does well by exporting products. somebody on the other side has to buy them. it is not an accident that a large number of people in this audience are business people. they are doing with benjamin franklin said -- doing well by doing good. in fact, that is the best part of the coalition. [applause] >> what senator leahy spoke
about was a degree of accountability. i would like to ask you both how you feel and what you feel needs to be done to make this diplomacy, this investment that you want to double more effective going forward. >> we should demand accountability. is the taxpayers' money. >> what does that mean? >> it means the average citizen is paying taxes to spend overseas to help these people and therefore, we should expect from them parol old law and the rule of law and to act inappropriate ways of what they are receiving from us. there is no problem in my mind of demanding the highest levels of accountability and sticking with rulke of law. there was a corporation of the george bush administration said we will invest in those countries that have demonstrated they are committed to rule of
law and and corruption. if people are wasting the money, we don't need to give them that money. the american people should not expect us to give them that money. >> let me put on the spot a little bit. your secretary of state today, we have this fiscal cliff we keep hearing about that we're facing. we may have sequestration of our military. we may have another downgrade, who knows where this will go? you have to go on the hill and make the case for double in or for spending more. how would you do that today? >> i think that would make very clear that the security of the united states depends on the fact of us having friends around the world and countries where people are able to live a decent life and where, in fact, there
is not an environment the terrorists can take advantage of. there is no direct line between poverty and terrorism but it does not take a lot of imagination to think of people who are completely alienated from their society are more recordable. you have to make a hard case. we need to have accountability in government. it is easier said than done in many ways. sometimes, we have to give the countries on the verge of changing. i think the corruption is the cancer of cooperation. how, in fact, can you get the institutional structures that make it -- make these things bible and other countries? we have to put it on the line that americans are better off when other countries do not have people who are susceptible to being corrupted or taken over by terrorist organizations tha.
[applause] [laughter] >> the cold war is over. there is no pure competitor out there with any intent or capability to threaten the continued existence of the united states of america. we are in a different kind of competition with others in the world now. we still are that nation that gives inspiration to the rest of the world, to people who are still striving for freedom and democracy. when i see what the chinese are doing, for example, and they will not be our enemy, they have too many of their own problems. what i see what they're doing with their soft power, i would say to my friends in congress that we have to be out there on the playing field. people are looking to us. what are we doing to help poverty or clean water or help them educate their children and getting access to the electronic revolution? this is in our interest.
it is an economic matter. the most powerful political force today is economics, not the size of the army, but who is creating the most wealth for their people. we have to participate in that world and the world requires more investments in the soft power part of smartcard. >> i think we have to make a larger argument. we're sitting in a building named for ronald reagan. inside this building is the wilson institute, woodrow wilson. is there anything more bipartisan than that combination? >> and one of the largest buildings in washington. >> you were talking about cliff, this is more than foreign aid. we are completely bound by the arguments going on in this city that are embarrassing to the position of the united states and the world. i am chairman of the board of
the national democratic institute and we talk about what democracy is about and we say one of the major aspects of democracy is compromise. they say like you guys? >> and what do you say? >> i say we have a problem. we have a huge issue -- and i got a great -- our issue is what is our economic security and what it does it depend on? it depends on a striking out the budget situation and people have to pay taxes. [applause] >> let me second that. washington cannot keep operating the way it has been. the simple message i give as if our founding fathers came together in philadelphia in 1787 and deal with some of the most remarkable issues, the most difficult issues imaginable, yet
in a couple of months and a hot room, they settled those differences through compromise which created a consensus and create a nation and write a constitution, you're telling me the united states congress cannot figure out how to get out of sequestration? [applause] >> is really remarkable. i think most everybody in this room and most everybody who has troubled world has had an experience like that someplace. i will never forget this -- in the middle of martial law poland as it was being -- as it was throwing off its communist yoke, i was in this restaurant with practically no food and i was speaking english with another college and a man heard me speaking english and clearly i was american. he reached into his breast pocket and pulled out an old american dollar bill and kisses the dollar bill and says america is good.
this is a country that does stand for something. this is how it is projected and how we follow through on that investment. i want to ask you something you both talk about which is the role of the private sector. we have heard from several people from corporate america which is making money overseas. it is growing overseas and part during with government overseas. how should that work? how should that look? how important is that? >> i beg the private sector is essential. public/private partnerships are one of the best ways to move the process forward in terms of helping the country which we are trying to help in terms of investment and also, if i might say so, american private sector companies in terms of their health policies, their labor policies, their approach to the environmental issues -- i discovered when i was secretary of state that these are our best ambassadors.
public/private partnership are very important. secretary clinton asked me to head a group as this sector of the private sector that is able to do a lot of good in partnership with the government, both our government and the government's overseas. there is a profit motive to doing it. corporate responsibility -- corporate social responsibility works along with having good business. i think it is vital. >> i could not agree more. the great wealth of our nation is in the private sector, not in the government. if the private sector is spread throughout the world now creating products and other countries, they're moving production facilities not to get away from american taxes but to find other markets. >> some of the people would say that. that is part of the push back. people say -- see that and they think they will lose their job. it scares them.
>> the reality is, it is a global economic system where enter this no longer an american company that is not also a global company. we have to understand what this dynamic is all about. the real challenge we have is educating our population for was a new economic system that we are living in. if we don't do that -- we talk about what we will do in other countries -- if we don't fix our education system in the united states, we will get left behind. [applause] >> i mentioned at the outset that we are in the middle of campaign season. i might ask you both the mi if thesds it and you'd like to beat on the road campaigning. >> i actually am. i am trying to help everybody that believes in what this country is about and that leaves our government and the functional and is willing to be
in congress and try to figure out how to get us out of this particular situation. by the way, colin powell and i are very good friends and have done many things together and i think we both agree on the fact that we are wrapped around the axle at the moment and we need people who want to come to washington to solve this problem, not create the problem. >> if you are campaigning today and speaking on behalf of this priority we are discussing tonight -- american leadership and development and diplomacy -- what does that campaign speech some light? >> it says first and foremost that economic development is the most powerful political force at work in the world today, not the size of the army. what we have to do is fix our economy. we need to do whatever that takes with government and fiscal policy and corporate. is it it will be fixed by a american
businesses and corporations. we have to do something with our immigration policy. we cannot pretend we're not a nation of immigrants. we always have been. that has been our greatest strength and we don't understand the importance of fixing this problem we have. [applause] we need to internalize that as of earlier this year, the majority of youngsters born in america are born of immigrant and minority families in one generation, the majority of all americans will be of another so- called diverse culture. we're the only nation on earth who can handle something like this. europe can't do it, only in america. we have to prepare ourselves for that kind of democracy. we have to understand that education is key to our success and education is not just paying
teachers more and fixing the schools. education has to be driven down to prenatal time. it has to be driven down so that we all understand that education begins and the home, home of loving people bring a child into the world in an atmosphere of love and prepared to give that child what is necessary to be successful in life and don't just blame teachers and schools because the entire community has a responsibility. [applause] >> six weeks before the last election, the two of you gathered with other secretaries of state at george washington university for a conversation that we enjoyed together. i ask you at the time what was your advice to the next president. everybody had an answer. you had the best line and the "was remember, you wanted this job." [laughter] what is your message to the next president to what this country
will face thinking about this changing world, more diverse world that is more globalized? >> i am looking at a sarin that says invest in our future. i think our next president who is the same present we have now -- [applause] >> or the other one who is running. >> i basically believe that that is the message, that it is very important. i agree with colin powell on education and there has to be explanation of why the policies are an investment in the future and not trying to undo the past. the issue here is how to make sure that america, as always, is looking forward. i think that is our strength. that would be my message. it is policies that really
invest in our future across the board and our future depends on the stability and security of people in other countries. that is the hard message. we're all together in this and have to invest also in the future of other countries to make ourselves more secure. >> and your message to the last president? >> you tried this last time. as i travel around the country, i try to talk about american values and a unique place that america occupies on the world stage. are we still number one is the question i get all the time. it is not like we used to be. there is now number two, three, and for and used to be much higher. china has risen and other nations are rising. i think that is terrific. the men's -- it means they're bringing their people out of poverty. we still are the shining city on
the hill, a place people look to for inspiration and we must never lose that position. i would say to the next president first and foremost, before we can fully occupy that shining place on the hill, fix our economy. our people are unhappy. because the economy is not doing what we think it should do. the other thing i would point out to the president is somehow, you got to find a way to get beyond the political fighting that is taking place in this town. they have gone after the president and a personal way, not just policies, but for the purpose of destruction. not to the purpose of debating strong views pro and con but for destruction. we've got to get past this politics of destruction and we've got to also, i don't know how you do this, but you got to figure out a way to bring the
american media system under control so it is concerned with informants and not just fighting for market share and the latest story of the day. [applause] >> i will join you with that. i think we need to tell this story imaginatively, creatively, positively, and responsibly. we will bring this to a close now. i would like to thank: palle and madeleine albright for your thoughtful and candid conversations [applause] . >> you did it again. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> ladies and gentleman, please welcome the president and ceo of the rescue association.
>> federal reserve chairman ben bernanke is delivering his semiannual monetary policy report to congress this week. he will return to capitol hill this morning to testify before the house financial-services committee. you can see that lighten our companion network, cspan 3 at 10:00 eastern. in about 45 minutes, today's headlines and your calls live on "washington journal." the house of representatives is in at 10:00 a.m. eastern for general speeches and legislative business at noon which includes the defense spending bill. in about 45 minutes, we will talk about defense spending with the south carolina republican representative, joe wilson. democratic rep of new jersey will take your questions about federal spending and tax cuts at 8: